has no ethics, deserves no ethics

Seems like Hamza Tzortzis, the muslim version of William Lame Craig, can not only be disohnest on his speechs, he can also have no level of respect at all.

On a recent debate with Prof. Hoodbhoy about Religion & Rationality, Hamza reached a new low by forcing Prof. Hoodbhoy to leave the room due to his constant uneducated behavior. It started early on the event when Hamza shamelessly called Prof. Hoodbhoy “a liar”. Hoodbhoy kept his polite posture for most part of the event but Hamza’s reprovable conduct continued and it reached the limit when Hamza was clueless of any argument that would support his ‘cloned Lame Craig apologetic’. After Prof. Hoodbhoy made a good point, Hamza then made a miserable ad hominem, accusing Prof. Hoodbhoy of “being new to the muslim world …that he hate so much ” which dr. Hoodbhoy corrected imminently pointing out the lie about the hate reference, and the incredibly dishonest response Hamza Tzortzis gave was.. “i didn’t say hate”.

Can someone be has shamelessly dishonest has Hamza Tzortzis? Does he not even realize his ridiculous behaviour? See the video, and make your own conclusions:

[UPDATED] March 28, 2012

i’ve just realized that the video which i’m linking was edited, where some of the “inconvenient parts” were removed. Furthermore, never trust a video were the comment section is disabled. The best way to promote lies is removing any possibility to question the message.

———————————————————————————————————————————–

Check out thess great videos about Ham’za ‘modus operandi’:

the original video of Prof. Hoodbhoy reaction on Ham-za’s dishonest ‘modus operandi’:

another video on Ham-za’s dishonest ‘modus operandi’:

Hey peace.
“have never seen a biggest liar than you man!” When you call someone a liar the least you can do is point out where he/she is lying.
“btw for the sake of argument if hamza used arguments of WLC .it doesnt mean that those arguments were weak.” I didn’t mention the weakness of the argument, i mentioned they are the same EXACT COPY of Lame Craig’s arguments. Ham-za is not even original. (see William Lane Craig’s videos)
“A rational person would not behave in the way you did.” Nop, a polite person would’nt behave like i do. I don’t believe everione should be trated politelly, expecially such dishonest people like Ham-za, therefore this post “Hamza has no ethics, deserves no ethics”.

“if you are a rational person then refute them” lol, Refutee what? Ham-za said Prof. Hoodbhoy’s book is full of lies when Ham-za doesn’t know anything about physics or astronomy. Ham-za speaks of scientific subjects like he knew more then the scientists themselves which is crassly dishonest. Prof. Hoodbhoy asked Ham-za if he could write Einstein’s equation for the expanding universe, and Ham-za said he can’t.. so why did Ham-za say the professsor is lying about something Hamza is ignorant about (see the video @1:09:15)? Dishonesty at it’s best.

See the first video from my post:
Ham-za uses strawman arguments, emotional apeelings (to an audience chosen by him), Ad hominem arguments and plain bold crude lies.
– S. Hawkins does not say philosophy is dead, and yes i have that book Ham-za is referring.
– Organic matter can come from inorganic matter naturally without the work of “agency”, and evolutionary process explains how complex living forms came to be, again without an “intelligent designer” needed.

As for the cosmological argument:
– First of all this philosophic argument is exclusively based on a scientific theory (BB theory) and there are other scientific theories that “theist philosophers” (conveniently) ignore, such as ‘string theory’ and ‘multiverse theory’.
– Ham-za can not say Scientism is wrong since the cosmological argument is founded on a the BB theory which is scientism. He can not agree with the cosmological argument if he doesn’t agree with scientism.
– “Began to exist..”, the Big Bang theory does NOT say the universe began to exist out of nothing, like Lame Craig or any of his clones (Ham-za) usually refer.
– the infinity paradox is not incompatible with science, this is a strawman argument created by Lame Craig. The concept of infinity is different for physicists and mathematicians, and the only problem physicists have with “infinity” is relating with “the infinite gradual gravitation state on black wholes” ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJ4zlvqOtE8 ). Once again, infinity concept taken out of context.
– The universe has nothing whatsoever that suggests an “agency”, “propose”, “design”. The universe is more then 99,99% hostile, chaotic and impersonal and natural laws do not suggest “design” like Lame Craig, ups i mean Ham-za suggests, since even natural laws have discrepancies, i.e. the Newtonian laws of gravity do not apply to the sub-atomic level.
– If we would talk about scientific similarities on a religious book we would be talking about the Torah, Bible or Q’ran but Rig Veda. The hindu Cosmology is not only more accurate then the Q’ran, it is also older then the Q’ran. Rig Veda is the only religious book that mentions the concept of a Billions of years old universe and the concept of and multi-universe.

Ham-za interpretation of the Q’ran are subjected to other people’s interpretations and not his own since like he admitted (on youtube’s “the magic sandwich show”) he does NOT know to read/write arabic.
Philosophy does not exclusively suggest the existence of God, there are various philosophic arguments that suggest the non existence of God such as:
– Euthyphro dilemma
– Epicurus paradox
– Russel’s Teapot
– Omnipotence paradox.
Of course William Lame Craig and Ham-za dishonestly do not mention this philosophic arguments because its not convenient for them.

“i know for Athiests it’s really hard to digest the objective truth”
So why don’t the atheist disable comments on their videos like muslims do? So why there are so many videos debunking “islamic scientific miracles” and there is no single muslim refuting them? Why do you muslims still prefer to listen to people like Ham-za about science instead of listening to scientists? Are scientists liars and muslims know better about science? lol realy? From where do you get “objective truth” from? Metaphysics or real science? Metaphors or tangible proof? lol why do you have the urge to say the Q’ran is scientifically accurate(lol) if you don’t get the truth from science?
And why would you say Q’ranic scientific claims were relieved by Allah if they were COPIED from the Helenistic Greek and the classic Hindu period which are OLDER then islam? Aren’t you surprised that all that scientic knowledge EXISTED LONG BEFORE the Q’ran? Was it revealed to the Greeks and Hindus by Allah? lol, how dare you call others liars if you aren’t even honest to yourself?? Learn about the Helenistic period and their discoveries on embryology, cosmology and biology. In fact, even the “islamic philosophy” is a COPY of Helenistic philosophy, and this is a fact.

btw “peace”, if you have to lie to promote your religion, then it is obvious your religion is a lie on the first place.

Reply ↓

7 comments

peace said: March 24, 20123:44 pm

i have never seen a biggest liar than you man! .i know for Athiests it’s really hard to digest the objective truth ,but u have to digest it man.
watch and shame on you.btw for the sake of argument if hamza used arguments of WLC .it doesnt mean that those arguments were weak.A rational person would not behave in the way you did.rather he will try to refute those arguments .if you are a rational person then refute them..

the following video exposes tge lies of hoodbhoy .

Reply ↓
- zzzzzzzwhat said: March 28, 201211:50 am
  
  Hey peace.
  “have never seen a biggest liar than you man!” When you call someone a liar the least you can do is point out where he/she is lying.
  “btw for the sake of argument if hamza used arguments of WLC .it doesnt mean that those arguments were weak.” I didn’t mention the weakness of the argument, i mentioned they are the same EXACT COPY of Lame Craig’s arguments. Ham-za is not even original. (see William Lane Craig’s videos)
  “A rational person would not behave in the way you did.” Nop, a polite person would’nt behave like i do. I don’t believe everione should be trated politelly, expecially such dishonest people like Ham-za, therefore this post “Hamza has no ethics, deserves no ethics”.
  
  “if you are a rational person then refute them” lol, Refutee what? Ham-za said Prof. Hoodbhoy’s book is full of lies when Ham-za doesn’t know anything about physics or astronomy. Ham-za speaks of scientific subjects like he knew more then the scientists themselves which is crassly dishonest. Prof. Hoodbhoy asked Ham-za if he could write Einstein’s equation for the expanding universe, and Ham-za said he can’t.. so why did Ham-za say the professsor is lying about something Hamza is ignorant about (see the video @1:09:15)? Dishonesty at it’s best.
  
  See the first video from my post:
  Ham-za uses strawman arguments, emotional apeelings (to an audience chosen by him), Ad hominem arguments and plain bold crude lies.
  – S. Hawkins does not say philosophy is dead, and yes i have that book Ham-za is referring.
  – Organic matter can come from inorganic matter naturally without the work of “agency”, and evolutionary process explains how complex living forms came to be, again without an “intelligent designer” needed.
  
  As for the cosmological argument:
  – First of all this philosophic argument is exclusively based on a scientific theory (BB theory) and there are other scientific theories that “theist philosophers” (conveniently) ignore, such as ‘string theory’ and ‘multiverse theory’.
  – Ham-za can not say Scientism is wrong since the cosmological argument is founded on a the BB theory which is scientism. He can not agree with the cosmological argument if he doesn’t agree with scientism.
  – “Began to exist..”, the Big Bang theory does NOT say the universe began to exist out of nothing, like Lame Craig or any of his clones (Ham-za) usually refer.
  – the infinity paradox is not incompatible with science, this is a strawman argument created by Lame Craig. The concept of infinity is different for physicists and mathematicians, and the only problem physicists have with “infinity” is relating with “the infinite gradual gravitation state on black wholes” ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJ4zlvqOtE8 ). Once again, infinity concept taken out of context.
  – The universe has nothing whatsoever that suggests an “agency”, “propose”, “design”. The universe is more then 99,99% hostile, chaotic and impersonal and natural laws do not suggest “design” like Lame Craig, ups i mean Ham-za suggests, since even natural laws have discrepancies, i.e. the Newtonian laws of gravity do not apply to the sub-atomic level.
  – If we would talk about scientific similarities on a religious book we would be talking about the Torah, Bible or Q’ran but Rig Veda. The hindu Cosmology is not only more accurate then the Q’ran, it is also older then the Q’ran. Rig Veda is the only religious book that mentions the concept of a Billions of years old universe and the concept of and multi-universe.
  
  Ham-za interpretation of the Q’ran are subjected to other people’s interpretations and not his own since like he admitted (on youtube’s “the magic sandwich show”) he does NOT know to read/write arabic.
  Philosophy does not exclusively suggest the existence of God, there are various philosophic arguments that suggest the non existence of God such as:
  – Euthyphro dilemma
  – Epicurus paradox
  – Russel’s Teapot
  – Omnipotence paradox.
  Of course William Lame Craig and Ham-za dishonestly do not mention this philosophic arguments because its not convenient for them.
  
  “i know for Athiests it’s really hard to digest the objective truth”
  So why don’t the atheist disable comments on their videos like muslims do? So why there are so many videos debunking “islamic scientific miracles” and there is no single muslim refuting them? Why do you muslims still prefer to listen to people like Ham-za about science instead of listening to scientists? Are scientists liars and muslims know better about science? lol realy? From where do you get “objective truth” from? Metaphysics or real science? Metaphors or tangible proof? lol why do you have the urge to say the Q’ran is scientifically accurate(lol) if you don’t get the truth from science?
  And why would you say Q’ranic scientific claims were relieved by Allah if they were COPIED from the Helenistic Greek and the classic Hindu period which are OLDER then islam? Aren’t you surprised that all that scientic knowledge EXISTED LONG BEFORE the Q’ran? Was it revealed to the Greeks and Hindus by Allah? lol, how dare you call others liars if you aren’t even honest to yourself?? Learn about the Helenistic period and their discoveries on embryology, cosmology and biology. In fact, even the “islamic philosophy” is a COPY of Helenistic philosophy, and this is a fact.
  
  btw “peace”, if you have to lie to promote your religion, then it is obvious your religion is a lie on the first place.
  
  Reply ↓
zzzzzzzwhat said: March 28, 201212:52 pm

btw, in response to “peace” video post, here’s the COMPLETE/ORIGINAL video of Prof. Hoodbhoy’s reaction to Ham’za non academic methods. And yes, comments are available, meaning this is not an dishonest video like the one “peace” posted.
(If you Ham’za fan boys were really promoting the truth you wouldn’t disable comments now would you?)

Reply ↓
a.p said: March 16, 201311:59 pm

hi – here is another debate of hamza making a fool of himself.

Reply ↓
Brandon said: June 30, 20132:43 am

I think Hamza Tzortzis is a dedicated man who has insight and he makes me want to know more/inspires me. I feel islam is true. Quite frankly Hamza makes sense period.

Reply ↓
- Yousef said: June 5, 201410:45 pm
  
  I agree with you my brother!
  He has brought much light and clarity for Islam and understanding of God.
  
  Reply ↓
atifqconsultantatif said: October 19, 201410:30 am

You guys whoever running this so called blog are bunch of crap. Hoodbhoy is a sick and mentally ill and having no other job but to undermine, Islam, ideology of Pakistan and Pakistan itself. The way you portray Hamza that itself proof that you have no guts to even discuss something with rationale rather using pathetic means to undermines others respect. Loved by million and no one even know this idiot So called pseudo-liberal “Intelligent intellectual”.

Reply ↓